alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2520 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2520

To amend title IV, of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 
1977, to encourage the mining and reclamation of previously mined areas 
          by active mining operations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 6 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

   Mr. Ford introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title IV, of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 
1977, to encourage the mining and reclamation of previously mined areas 
          by active mining operations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

                       ABANDONED MINE FEE CREDIT

    Section 1. Section 402(a) of the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1322(a)) is amended as follows:
            (1) Add the following after Sec. 402(a):
            ``(1) Except as provided in subsection 402(a)(2),''.
            (2) At the end of the paragraph add the following 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) The Secretary may grant a credit to any operator for 
        the reclamation fee otherwise required to be paid in section 
        402(a)(1) for coal within an eligible site, pursuant to section 
        404, as an incentive to operators, to remine areas if the 
        Secretary finds that (1) the cost to reclaim the affected area 
        under this title would significantly exceed the reclamation fee 
        credit provided for the recoverable coal within the affected 
        site and (2) the mining and subsequent reclamation of the 
        affected site by a private operator is in the public interest. 
        In a primacy State, the Secretary shall administer the 
        provision of this paragraph through a cooperative agreement 
        with that State and shall obtain the recommendation of the 
        State before granting the credit. The Secretary may require a 
        bond to ensure repayment of the credit in the event the site is 
        not fully reclaimed.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015354EN.01001101.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-463/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services - Chargeable event - Need for proof of the actual supply of services - Chargeability of the tax))

(2015/C 354/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract.

| 2. | As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services.

---

(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.

1

---
No. 10-6486.

#### David Carson, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

562 U.S. 1048, 131 S. Ct. 608,

178 L. Ed. 2d 443,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9003.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
No. 10-7748.

#### Mir Ali, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1160, 131 S. Ct. 965,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 69.

178 L. Ed. 2d 794,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 619 F.3d 713.
#### *Barth et al., Respondents, v. Am. Pension Servs., Inc., Petitioner,*

No. 92124-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72049-0-I, August 3, 2015, 189 Wn. App. 1018. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SHAUN CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 310 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
##### 



(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of R.H. Donnelley Inc. as
of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    Steven M. BlondyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerNovember 6, 2007
    
    November 6, 2007
  27
Exhibit 32



    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tiger Telematics,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form [10-Q] for the period  ending  September  30 , 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  officer of the
Company hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  that  based on their  knowledge  and
belief:  1) the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information  contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of  operations  of the Company as of and for the periods  covered in
the Report.



S/ Michael W. Carrender
---------------------------------------------
Michael W, Carrender,  Chief Executive Officer



S/ Michael W. Carrender
---------------------------------------------
Michael W. Carrender, Chief Financial Officer



April 29, 2004
No. 10-370.

#### Kathleen Stewart, Petitioner v. AT&T, fka SBC Communications, et al.

562 U.S. 1030, 131 S. Ct. 573,

178 L. Ed. 2d 415,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8680.

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 474.
B-P1096 (4/18) ©2018 Magellan Health, Inc.

No-cost help 

for legal, financial and 

identity theft issues

Talk to an expert for free, or go online to access tools, education and 

resources. 

Topics include:

• Debt and credit

• Divorce

• College and retirement planning

• Taxes and audits

• Budget planning 

Give us a call or learn more 

at MagellanAscend.com

Employee Assistance Program

1-866-580-9046
#### *State, Respondent, v. Benitez, Petitioner,*

No. 91946-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71305-1-I, June 1, 2015 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1040. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
No. 10-7476.

#### Chris McCollough, Petitioner v. Mark Bradt, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1185, 131 S. Ct. 1008,

178 L. Ed. 2d 837,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 861.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ ROBERT GREENBERG

Robert GreenbergChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)May 9, 2008/s/ FREDERICK H. SCHNEIDER

Frederick H. SchneiderChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)May 9, 2008
IB 

Union Calendar No. 143 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3018 

[Report No. 116–185] 

To prohibit the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from implementing a proposed rule regarding requirements under Community Planning and Development housing programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2019 

Ms. WEXTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

AUGUST 13, 2019 

Additional sponsors: Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Ms. NORTON, 

Mr. COX of California, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. LAWSON of Florida, Mr. 

LOWENTHAL, Ms. ESCOBAR, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. HILL of 

California, Mr. HIGGINS of New York, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. KENNEDY, 

Ms. DELBENE, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. MOORE, Ms. 

HAALAND, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. CASE, Mr. THOMPSON of California, 

Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Ms. 

JACKSON LEE, Mr. BEYER, Mr. SOTO, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. CRIST, Mr. 

MOULTON, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. RASKIN, 

Mr. MEEKS, Ms. MENG, Ms. TITUS, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Ms. CASTOR

of Florida, Ms. OMAR, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, 

and Mr. BLUMENAUER

AUGUST 13, 2019 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 23, 2019] 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3018 RH

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from implementing a proposed rule regarding requirements under Community Planning and Development 

housing programs. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3018 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Equal Access 

5 to Shelter Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE. 

7 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

8 may not implement, administer, enforce, or in any manner 

9 make effective the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Revised Require10 ments Under Community Planning and Development 

11 Housing Programs’’, published by the Department of Hous12 ing and Urban Development in Spring 2019 (Docket No. 

13 FR-6152; RIN: 2506-AC53), or any final rule based sub14 stantially on such proposed rule. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 143 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3018 

[Report No. 116–185] 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

ning and Development housing programs. regarding requirements under Community PlanDevelopment from implementing a proposed rule 

AUGUST 13, 2019 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
----

Exhibit 32.1

**OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Envirokare Tech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, George Kazantzis, Acting President (Principal Financial Officer) and Nicholas Pappas (Chief Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

That the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate on this 14th day of August 2005.

  /s/ George Kazantzis  ____________________________  Name: George Kazantzis  Title: Acting President (Principal Financial Officer)

/s/ Nicholas Pappas  ___________________________  Name: Nicholas Pappas  Title: Chief Executive Officer (Chief Executive Officer)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3019 

To require that Federal agencies only procure cut flowers and cut greens 

produced in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2019 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Ms. PINGREE, Ms. HERRERA

BEUTLER, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. CARBAJAL, and Mr. YOHO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require that Federal agencies only procure cut flowers 

and cut greens produced in the United States, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Grown Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Funds appropriated or otherwise 

7 available to a Federal agency may only be used for the 

8 procurement of a cut flower or cut green if the cut flower 

9 or cut green is produced in the United States. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3019 IH

1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

2 (1) CUT FLOWER.—The term ‘‘cut flower’’ 

3 means a flower removed from a living plant for deco4 rative use. 

5 (2) CUT GREEN.—The term ‘‘cut green’’ means 

6 a green, foliage, or branch removed from a living 

7 plant for decorative use. 

8 (3) FEDERAL AGENCY.— 

9 (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘Federal 

10 agency’’ means each instrumentality of the Fed11 eral Government. 

12 (B) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding sub13 paragraph (A), the term ‘‘Federal agency’’ does 

14 not include an instrumentality of the Federal 

15 Government if the instrumentality is located 

16 outside of the several States or the District of 

17 Columbia. 

18 (4) PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.—The 

19 term ‘‘produced in the United States’’ means grown 

20 in— 

21 (A) any of the several States; 

22 (B) the District of Columbia; 

23 (C) a territory or possession of the United 

24 States; or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3019 IH

1 (D) an area subject to the jurisdiction of 

2 a federally recognized Indian Tribe. 

3 (c) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to a 

4 procurement made or contracted for on or after the date 

5 that is one year after the date of the enactment of this 

6 Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 10-6784.

#### Jimmy Dari Sullivan, Petitioner v. Mark Nooth, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 799,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9500.

178 L. Ed. 2d 534,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ STUART GRAYSTON                                               
|Stuart Grayston President and chief executive
officer May 15, 2006
EXHIBIT 11.1


                          ENVIRODYNE INDUSTRIES, INC.
              STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        December            December
                                        29, 1995            30, 1994        January 
                                           to                  to            1 to 
                                        December            December       December
                                        26, 1996            28, 1995       29, 1994
                                        --------            --------       --------
                                                  (in thousands except for
                                           number of shares and per share amounts)

<S>                                   <C>                 <C>            <C>
Average shares outstanding             14,325,595          13,516,771     13,500,703

Assuming exercise of options
  reduced by the number of
  shares which could have been
  purchased with the proceeds
  from exercise of such options                                                        
                                       ----------          ----------     ----------
Weighted average shares
  outstanding as adjusted              14,325,595          13,516,771     13,500,703
                                       ==========          ==========     ==========

(Loss) before
  extraordinary loss                     $(13,682)           $(17,323)       $(3,612)
                                         ========            ========        =======

Net Income (Loss)                        $(13,682)           $(21,519)       $(3,612)
                                         ========            ========        =======

Per share amounts
  assuming full dilution:
  (Loss) before
    extraordinary loss                      $(.96)            $(1.28)          $(.27)
                                            =====             ======           =====
Net Income (Loss)                           $(.96)            $(1.59)          $(.27)
                                            =====             ======           =====
<FN> 
Note:  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K
       Item 601(b)11 although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14
       of APB Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.

</TABLE>
#### Michael P. Thomas, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[52 NYS3d 855]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered April 15, 2016, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this taxpayer action, plaintiff Michael P. Thomas, alleges, among other things, that defendant Department of Education (DOE) and defendant Chancellor Farina engaged in fraudulent and/or wasteful acts in connection with defendant Communications Workers of America District One’s (CWA) use of public school property to host a meeting with Mayor Bill de Blasio, and that the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (SCI) fraudulently concealed such conduct.

*413Plaintiff does not deny that CWA was charged, and paid, the customary fees set by the DOE for use of public school premises, including custodial and security costs. Accordingly, the grant of use of the school premises to CWA does not constitute a gift of money in violation of the New York State Constitution *(see*NY Const, art VIII, § 1). Moreover, because no expenditure was accompanied by fraud or for an entirely illegal purpose, no cause of action lies under General Municipal Law § 51 *(see Godfrey v Spano,*13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009]). In addition, plaintiff may not use a taxpayer action to correct technical or procedural irregularities by the DOE or to review determinations allegedly made in violation of law *(see Beresford Apts. v City of New York,*238 AD2d 218, 219 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*89 NY2d 815 [1997]).

Plaintiff, who failed to allege an intent to deceive, has not pleaded a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation or bad faith against SCI (see *Guberman v Rudder,*85 AD3d 683, 684 [1st Dept 2011]; *see also Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney,*88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]), and his conclusory allegations lack the requisite specificity (see CPLR 3016 [b]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.